I entirely agree with you that Dr Anne Thwaite is by far one of the
most accomplished biographers around. But, Keith, isn't this
preciely because she takes exactly the type of rigorous,
historiographical approach that you go to such pains to disparage. I
haven't read the Emily Tennyson biography - but have read other of
her biographies (he biography of Gosse is remarkable) - but both Dr
Thwaite and her husband build there biographical writings on the
basis of a highly methodological approach to biography which is
precisely what I am arguing for in the case of Carroll (This is
almost certainly why, on top of her 'earned' doctorate, she was
awarded an honorary D.Litt. by everyone's favourite social sciences
university, the University of East Anglia. I suppose if Anne Thwaite
was german, she swould these days be addressed as Dr, Dr Thwaite!

Now, regarding the rest of your mail. I can't really respond unless
you explain what you mean by 'our sense' of the term socialist. If
you mean the word as it is used politically in the UK in contemporary
terms then I cannot accept that statement. Morris's socialism was
based on tweo ideas (both of which FD Maurice approved of - and both
of which Carroll approved of. First was the danger of the de-
skilling of the workforce by the adoption of economies of scale and
division of labour. Second was the primacy of the social over the
individual - the idea of community and the social and economic group
in which no simgle person can take 'ownership' of production. Both,
of course, were early exponents of the idea that technical and
scientific innovations require balancing by an understanding of the
consequences of such developments and ensuring that major innovations
are only introduced after careful considerations of the social
consequences. Sylvie and Bruno was, in part, a satire of this idea
of the consequences of deifying 'knowledge' without understanding.
Similarly, when you read Carroll's anti-vivisection qwritings, he is
equally critical of those whose aim is merely the production of
scientific ideas as a commercial process. Of course the main-stream
of British socialism since the 1920s actually extolls the
materialising of scientific progress - so no, keith, i cannot agree
with your analysis and as a consequence can see no difficulty with a
Morris - Maurice - Carroll continuum.

Regards

JT

So John,

>
> I cannot agree upon your assessment of Maurice as a conservative in

the 19c sense. Maurice was associated with William Morris who was a
socialist almost in our sense of the word. There is no doubt in my
mind that CLD's conservatism was not that of F.D.Maurice. For one
thing Maurice wanted to help the working classes, CLD thought such
help was impossible on a nationwide basis which is pure Conservative
policy aka Maggie Thatcher style i.e get on your bike!

>
> I also must take issue on the 'trained historians' idea, that was

not what I meant. Anne Thwaite for example would not fit into that
standard mould yet her biography of Emily Tennyson is one of the best
I have come across. Accepting the strait jacket of the professional
historian would to me limit the scope of a biographer and I shudder
to think of what another Oxford trained biographer would make of it
all on CLD! Another monumental irrelevant tome!

>
> Many of the biographies have passed into history without creating

any waves, Thomas, Bakewell, Green, Cohen and even Walter De la Mare
wrote a book which is only of interest as a historical failure.
Pudney's 'Lewis Carroll's world' is only of interest because of the
illustrations his facts in places are wrong. Gernsheim opened up his
photography and his book is valuable even nowadays and he didn't make
as many errors as the currrent set of books on his photography!

>
> I do wish you would not quote historians as authorities on

anything. Their views are quite irrelevant as they study a subject to
make a point and if they cannot make the point from the evidence then
they speculate or fabricate. That's why LC studies are in this mess -
too many people setting off with already closed minds and an agenda
already established.

>
> CLD chased Tennyson because he was lionising him certainly not for

his views on anything. Tennyson to all intents and purposes
disregarded CLD completely other than being a host to him in the Lake
district or Farringford because of the photographs he took of
Tennyson's boys and Agnes Weld who was his niece. I saw no meeting of
minds with CLD and Tennyson. Tennyson and Maurice did have similar
outlooks and there was a meeting of mind there. It puzzles me why CLD
went to Maurice as the two did not share views and neither could they
be said to be friends. However, when you examine all CLD's
relationships from the evidence of the diaries and letters they all
seem to be remote ones, nothing even remotely approaching Swinburne
and Gosse. This could be that he was just not expressive in his
writings to people he knew of course, even his letters to children
lack a warm tone and are at times derogatory of the child. However, I
don't think though that anyone could claim to have known CLD as he
seems impenetrable, certainly the only person to make such a claim in
writing was Isa Bowman.

> associate and/or approve of, whether Lord Salisbury or Tennyson,
> Coleridge or Maxwell, the Rossettis or Macdonald. There are very
> clear similarities in the world views of all these people -

beginning

> with an complete rejecvtion of Liberal values.
>
> I agree that his associations with women do appear to raise

certain

> issues. However (and again) this was not quite as unusual as

would

> appear from a 21st century perspective. This was ther beginning

of

> the period leading towards female emancipation and it has been
> strongly argued by historians such as Christopher Hill and Eric
> Hobsbaum that class distictions between women and men (I'm

talking

> here about the lower middle class to minor aristocracy spectrum)

were

> far looser than between men and men. There was a certain cache
> involved in mentoring bright young women from comparatively lowly

or

> less advantaged backgrounds - so long as in other respects they

were

> respectable. Don't forget that many of the women who attended the
> early women colleges were patronised by 'forward thinking men' of

the

> higher classes.
>
> I have always felt that no competent biography of Carroll is

possible

> unless carried out by somebody who is first and foremost a
> historian. Even AE Wilson would be preferable to somebody working
> from a purely literary background.
>
> Not that Carroll is alone in this, I have seen similar

> Collingwood did his best under the circumstances of having six of
> CLD's sisters giving him 'advice' but in the end he did a

whitewash

> job, but one which is the obligatory starting point for all the
> biographers who followed.
> >
> > Unfortunately we have never had one of the professional

biographers

> do a job on CLD so it's been left to the amateurs who quite

frankly

> have muffed it. Whether Margaret Lane or Ann Thwaite would have
> succeeded is of course debatable and perhaps they had enough

sense to

> steer clear of someone who has more contradictions than one would
> expect.
> >
> > I think he was deliberately contradictory but if he was he put

a

> lot of effort into it. He was a snob who spent several days

caring

> for a college scout. He was an ultra conservative who attended
> services in a church run by F.D. Maurice, a man with socialist
> leanings. He doled out his money in purses so that he never had

to

> over-tip or under-tip and kept accounts of his holiday spending

then

> gave away most of his money away to his family and friends. He
> professed an interest in history and then lived next door to a
> medieval castle, one which he took close to 30 years to visit. He
> mixed with the aristocracy but preferred the company of Isa

Bowman.

> This is by no means an exhaustive list and what the biographers

do is

> pick up on one thing and ignore anything that runs counter to

that

> thing or their owqn pet theory. They then add in their own

prejudices

> and end up with a monumental mess.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: jenny2write
> > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:45 PM
> > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Enigmatic Carroll.
> >
> >
> > Keith, your well informed comments are spot on. Carroll was an
> > enigmatic one-off, and in a way it's hard to add to that.
> However, I
> > always feel I learn a lot from one-offs and I have certainly
> found it
> > most interesting to consider how Carroll's mind worked.
> >
> > I'd just add that it seems very hard even to see one's nearest
> and
> > dearest clearly, so the chance of understanding someone who

John, no, re Ann Thwaite, it s because she thinks outside of the box that I think she has cracked it with Tennyson. Gosse is another matter, he is another

Message 2 of 13
, Nov 19, 2007

John,

no, re Ann Thwaite, it's because she 'thinks
outside of the box' that I think she has cracked it with Tennyson. Gosse is
another matter, he is another enigma, famous for being famous. I consider her
talent to be unique to her and that is something no amount of academic teaching
can engender in anyone. I would think she would be just as effective without her
PhD - in fact I would say it's a miracle she has a PhD and still can think like
she does. Your assumption that all knowledge can emanate from a university is
ludicrous. All a university does is provide an able person with the means of
possibly having the time and inclination to do research. I found most tutors
where I did my degree to be a hindrance more than a help - before the hordes
descend I said most not all. There are other things besides university and until
the advent of the recent 'Mickey Mouse' degrees then most people would not even
know about a university education.

Whether you respond or not is your choice. I
understand socialism as it was when I was a youngster in the 50's and that is
not what socialism meant in the Victorian era. Victorian socialism was a
paternal system to assist the working classes who were to remain still as
sub-servient to the ruling classes. To me it is self evident - if it isn't to
you then you obviously had a different more privileged upbringing than myself.

The idea that anyone can predict the outcomes of
technology is also something I cannot accept. Einstein was appalled when he
realised the power of the atomic bomb. Did Stephenson really stop to consider
the consequences of his winning the Rainhill trials? Unlikely, and even had he
done so he was in no position to make a judgement. Look at the number of
inventions that folk have dismissed only to find somebody else exploiting
them.

Getting back to CLD, the idea that CLD had insight
into lots of things is not borne out by the evidence. He was not a socialist
even in the Maurice mould never mind in the Morris model! CLD was,
despite his poverty stricken first eleven years, a Conservative and was very
sycophantic to the ruling classes. Look at his debacle with Rosebery who was, by
anyone's book a twit, that was only softened because Rosebery had two daughters
and was wise enough to accept to accept a gift of 'Alice' knowing full well that
CLD was famous by then.

I entirely agree
with you that Dr Anne Thwaite is by far one of the most accomplished
biographers around. But, Keith, isn't this preciely because she takes
exactly the type of rigorous, historiographical approach that you go to
such pains to disparage. I haven't read the Emily Tennyson biography - but
have read other of her biographies (he biography of Gosse is remarkable) -
but both Dr Thwaite and her husband build there biographical writings on
the basis of a highly methodological approach to biography which is
precisely what I am arguing for in the case of Carroll (This is almost
certainly why, on top of her 'earned' doctorate, she was awarded an
honorary D.Litt. by everyone's favourite social sciences university, the
University of East Anglia. I suppose if Anne Thwaite was german, she
swould these days be addressed as Dr, Dr Thwaite!

Now, regarding the
rest of your mail. I can't really respond unless you explain what you mean
by 'our sense' of the term socialist. If you mean the word as it is used
politically in the UK in contemporary terms then I cannot accept that
statement. Morris's socialism was based on tweo ideas (both of which FD
Maurice approved of - and both of which Carroll approved of. First was the
danger of the de-skilling of the workforce by the adoption of economies of
scale and division of labour. Second was the primacy of the social over
the individual - the idea of community and the social and economic group
in which no simgle person can take 'ownership' of production. Both, of
course, were early exponents of the idea that technical and scientific
innovations require balancing by an understanding of the consequences of
such developments and ensuring that major innovations are only introduced
after careful considerations of the social consequences. Sylvie and Bruno
was, in part, a satire of this idea of the consequences of deifying
'knowledge' without understanding. Similarly, when you read Carroll's
anti-vivisection qwritings, he is equally critical of those whose aim is
merely the production of scientific ideas as a commercial process. Of
course the main-stream of British socialism since the 1920s actually
extolls the materialising of scientific progress - so no, keith, i cannot
agree with your analysis and as a consequence can see no difficulty with a
Morris - Maurice - Carroll continuum.

Regards

JT

So
John,> > I cannot agree upon your assessment of Maurice as a
conservative in the 19c sense. Maurice was associated with William Morris
who was a socialist almost in our sense of the word. There is no doubt in
my mind that CLD's conservatism was not that of F.D.Maurice. For one
thing Maurice wanted to help the working classes, CLD thought such
help was impossible on a nationwide basis which is pure Conservative
policy aka Maggie Thatcher style i.e get on your bike!> > I
also must take issue on the 'trained historians' idea, that was not what I
meant. Anne Thwaite for example would not fit into that standard mould yet
her biography of Emily Tennyson is one of the best I have come across.
Accepting the strait jacket of the professional historian would to me
limit the scope of a biographer and I shudder to think of what another
Oxford trained biographer would make of it all on CLD! Another monumental
irrelevant tome!> > Many of the biographies have passed into
history without creating any waves, Thomas, Bakewell, Green, Cohen and
even Walter De la Mare wrote a book which is only of interest as a
historical failure. Pudney's 'Lewis Carroll's world' is only of interest
because of the illustrations his facts in places are wrong. Gernsheim
opened up his photography and his book is valuable even nowadays and he
didn't make as many errors as the currrent set of books on his
photography!> > I do wish you would not quote historians as
authorities on anything. Their views are quite irrelevant as they study a
subject to make a point and if they cannot make the point from the
evidence then they speculate or fabricate. That's why LC studies are in
this mess - too many people setting off with already closed minds and an
agenda already established.> > CLD chased Tennyson because
he was lionising him certainly not for his views on anything. Tennyson to
all intents and purposes disregarded CLD completely other than being a
host to him in the Lake district or Farringford because of the photographs
he took of Tennyson's boys and Agnes Weld who was his niece. I saw no
meeting of minds with CLD and Tennyson. Tennyson and Maurice did have
similar outlooks and there was a meeting of mind there. It puzzles me why
CLD went to Maurice as the two did not share views and neither could they
be said to be friends. However, when you examine all CLD's
relationships from the evidence of the diaries and letters they all
seem to be remote ones, nothing even remotely approaching Swinburne
and Gosse. This could be that he was just not expressive in his
writings to people he knew of course, even his letters to children
lack a warm tone and are at times derogatory of the child. However, I
don't think though that anyone could claim to have known CLD as he
seems impenetrable, certainly the only person to make such a claim in
writing was Isa Bowman.> > Keith > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message
----- > From: tufail45 > To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:08 AM> Subject:
[lewiscarroll] Re: Enigmatic Carroll.> > > Keith,>
> I wholeheartedly agree. Part of the problem with Carroll >
biographies, of course, was that period immediately following WWII
> when not only were the biographers not 'professional' (in any
sense > of the word) but also had very clear pre-formed agendas
into which > they were determined to showhorn Lewis Carroll. I
particularly > refer, of course to Becker Lennon and Greenacre. Mind
you, I have > always felt rather sorry for Taylor who, by all accounts
tried to do > a professional and objective job but was sabotaged,
apparently, by > his editor who insisted on wholseale changes and
deletions on purely > commercial ground (i.e., 'get rid of all
tyhis boring religious > rubbish and put in more juicy sex and
scandal'.> > Other biographers were just not trained historians
and appear to have > no undestanding of the religious, political
and social environment in > which Carroll lived.> > I
have to say that many of the things that you have pointed out of >
contradictory about Carroll are in fact not, when seen in a 19th >
century context. For example you describe Carroll as ultra >
conservative and cite his support (or relationship with) Maurice as
> contradictory. However don't forget that politically and in terms
of > maintaining the social and cultural mores of their time people
like > Maurice, ludlow, Kinglsey and others associated with the
Christian > Socialist and Broad Church movement were in fact
Conservative > politically and very conservative socially. The
Christian Socialist > movement arose from a spiritual and political
reaction to Liberalism > and emerged wholly from the Conservative
tradition. You can see its > parallel in the New England movement -
a fundamental rejection of the > liberal ideology of
individualism.> > So no contradiction there, at least.>
> Carroll actually shows remarkable consistency in who he prefered
to > associate and/or approve of, whether Lord Salisbury or
Tennyson, > Coleridge or Maxwell, the Rossettis or Macdonald. There are
very > clear similarities in the world views of all these people -
beginning > with an complete rejecvtion of Liberal values.>
> I agree that his associations with women do appear to raise
certain > issues. However (and again) this was not quite as unusual
as would > appear from a 21st century perspective. This was ther
beginning of > the period leading towards female emancipation and
it has been > strongly argued by historians such as Christopher Hill
and Eric > Hobsbaum that class distictions between women and men (I'm
talking > here about the lower middle class to minor aristocracy
spectrum) were > far looser than between men and men. There was a
certain cache > involved in mentoring bright young women from
comparatively lowly or > less advantaged backgrounds - so long as
in other respects they were > respectable. Don't forget that many
of the women who attended the > early women colleges were patronised by
'forward thinking men' of the > higher classes.> > I
have always felt that no competent biography of Carroll is possible
> unless carried out by somebody who is first and foremost a >
historian. Even AE Wilson would be preferable to somebody working >
from a purely literary background.> > Not that Carroll is alone
in this, I have seen similar difficulties > with biographies of
people such as Coleridge and Defoe - both writers > whose
contributions go beyond the astrictly literary.> >
Regards> > JT> > --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com,
"Keith" <keith@> wrote:> >> > Jenny,> >
> > with Lewis Carroll he has not been served well by his
biographers. > Collingwood did his best under the circumstances of
having six of > CLD's sisters giving him 'advice' but in the end he did
a whitewash > job, but one which is the obligatory starting point
for all the > biographers who followed. > > > >
Unfortunately we have never had one of the professional biographers
> do a job on CLD so it's been left to the amateurs who quite
frankly > have muffed it. Whether Margaret Lane or Ann Thwaite
would have > succeeded is of course debatable and perhaps they had
enough sense to > steer clear of someone who has more
contradictions than one would > expect. > > > > I
think he was deliberately contradictory but if he was he put a >
lot of effort into it. He was a snob who spent several days caring
> for a college scout. He was an ultra conservative who attended
> services in a church run by F.D. Maurice, a man with socialist
> leanings. He doled out his money in purses so that he never had
to > over-tip or under-tip and kept accounts of his holiday
spending then > gave away most of his money away to his family and
friends. He > professed an interest in history and then lived next door
to a > medieval castle, one which he took close to 30 years to visit.
He > mixed with the aristocracy but preferred the company of Isa
Bowman. > This is by no means an exhaustive list and what the
biographers do is > pick up on one thing and ignore anything that
runs counter to that > thing or their owqn pet theory. They then
add in their own prejudices > and end up with a monumental
mess.> > > > Keith> > > > >
> ----- Original Message ----- > > From: jenny2write >
> To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:45 PM> >
Subject: [lewiscarroll] Enigmatic Carroll.> > > > >
> Keith, your well informed comments are spot on. Carroll was an >
> enigmatic one-off, and in a way it's hard to add to that. >
However, I > > always feel I learn a lot from one-offs and I have
certainly > found it > > most interesting to consider how
Carroll's mind worked. > > > > I'd just add that it seems
very hard even to see one's nearest > and > > dearest
clearly, so the chance of understanding someone who died > before
> > one was born must be pretty low. Actually, I don't think I've
> ever met > > anyone who can describe anyone else perfectly,
even when they > know them > > really well - mum, best
friend, partner - !> > > > Jenny > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ->
----------> > > > > > No virus found in this
incoming message.> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date: >
14/11/2007 09:27> >> > > > >
> >
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----------->
> > No virus found in this incoming message.> Checked by
AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1136 -
Release Date: 17/11/2007 14:55>

CLD was, despite his poverty stricken first eleven years, a Conservative and was very sycophantic to the ruling classes. Look at his debacle with Rosebery who

Message 3 of 13
, Nov 19, 2007

CLD was, despite his poverty stricken first eleven years, a
Conservative and was very sycophantic to the ruling classes. Look at
his debacle with Rosebery who was, by anyone's book a twit, that was
only softened because Rosebery had two daughters and was wise enough
to accept to accept a gift of 'Alice' knowing full well that CLD was
famous by then.

>

I may be missing something here but I thought the main problem with
Rosebery was that R did not acknowledge CLD in the street, which was
tantamount to "cutting" him. CLD didn't acknowledge him which would
have made him seem impertinent as Rosebery was "higher" than him. He
therefore, being an appalling fusspot, wrote to Rosebery about it. It
is noticeable how grievously CLD would fuss about tiny things like
this, you do feel perhaps he had a bit too much spare time sometimes.
But of course it was important in polite circles to greet people in
the correct way. Victorian etiquette books do have details of how you
ought to acknowledge people of different classes (relative to
yourself) in the street. Some, you will incline your head to, some
you will greet with speech, some you will ignore, and there WAS this
thing about never speaking till you were introduced, hence the well
known joke about the two Englishmen stranded on a desert island for
20 years who never knew anything about each other becuase they had
not been introduced and had never therefore had a conversation. I
think Carroll used to worry himself about these details of etiquette,
because they were senseless and pointless and yet it could be such a
disaster (in some circles) if you got them wrong. I would imagine
this is one of the major reasons that he preferred the company of
children, when such anxiety-making stupidities were unnecessary.

Anyway to get back to Rosebery - what else did CLD do which suggests
your idea that he was syncophatic towards him?

Jenny

Keith

Jenny, As you say, CLD said that as the superior he expected Rosebery to acknowledge him first. The incident happened in June 1893 in the quad before Rosebery

Message 4 of 13
, Nov 19, 2007

Jenny,

As you say, CLD said that as the superior he
expected Rosebery to acknowledge him first. The incident happened in June 1893
in the quad before Rosebery succeeded gladstone as PM. As you say, what a fuss about who should acknowledge who. But that was
CLD. Whether he extended it down to upper class children I don't
know.

CLD sent him 'Alice' - he wrote to his
children and visited them. Not sure it needed any more than that first
incidence! Rosebery became PM in March 1894 and CLD called on him (he
was out) in July 94 - sheer coincidence I suppose! Also just to be contradictory
he refused in June 1894 to go to breakfast with him when invited to do so on the
grounds that if he accepted one invitation he'd have to accept
others!

CLD was, despite his poverty stricken first eleven years, a
Conservative and was very sycophantic to the ruling classes. Look at
his debacle with Rosebery who was, by anyone's book a twit, that was
only softened because Rosebery had two daughters and was wise enough
to accept to accept a gift of 'Alice' knowing full well that CLD was
famous by then.>I may be missing something here but I thought
the main problem with Rosebery was that R did not acknowledge CLD in the
street, which was tantamount to "cutting" him. CLD didn't acknowledge him
which would have made him seem impertinent as Rosebery was "higher" than
him. He therefore, being an appalling fusspot, wrote to Rosebery about it.
It is noticeable how grievously CLD would fuss about tiny things like
this, you do feel perhaps he had a bit too much spare time sometimes.
But of course it was important in polite circles to greet people in
the correct way. Victorian etiquette books do have details of how you
ought to acknowledge people of different classes (relative to
yourself) in the street. Some, you will incline your head to, some you
will greet with speech, some you will ignore, and there WAS this thing
about never speaking till you were introduced, hence the well known joke
about the two Englishmen stranded on a desert island for 20 years who
never knew anything about each other becuase they had not been introduced
and had never therefore had a conversation. I think Carroll used to worry
himself about these details of etiquette, because they were senseless and
pointless and yet it could be such a disaster (in some circles) if you got
them wrong. I would imagine this is one of the major reasons that he
preferred the company of children, when such anxiety-making stupidities
were unnecessary.

Anyway to get back to Rosebery - what else did CLD
do which suggests your idea that he was syncophatic towards
him?

First do not make unwarranted assumptions about what I may, or may
not think of universities as founts of all knowledge.

Secondly, please do NOT make extremely personal assumptions about my
upbringing. You, of all people, should be aware that those who value
education the most are those who had to fight hardest to achieve it.

You appear to be in grave danger of exempting yourself from the
prejudices and erroneous assumptions of which, in the last several
mails, you have freely accused others.

Regards

JT

John,

>
> no, re Ann Thwaite, it's because she 'thinks outside of the box'

that I think she has cracked it with Tennyson. Gosse is another
matter, he is another enigma, famous for being famous. I consider her
talent to be unique to her and that is something no amount of
academic teaching can engender in anyone. I would think she would be
just as effective without her PhD - in fact I would say it's a
miracle she has a PhD and still can think like she does. Your
assumption that all knowledge can emanate from a university is
ludicrous. All a university does is provide an able person with the
means of possibly having the time and inclination to do research. I
found most tutors where I did my degree to be a hindrance more than a
help - before the hordes descend I said most not all. There are other
things besides university and until the advent of the recent 'Mickey
Mouse' degrees then most people would not even know about a
university education.

>
> Whether you respond or not is your choice. I understand socialism

as it was when I was a youngster in the 50's and that is not what
socialism meant in the Victorian era. Victorian socialism was a
paternal system to assist the working classes who were to remain
still as sub-servient to the ruling classes. To me it is self
evident - if it isn't to you then you obviously had a different more
privileged upbringing than myself.

>
> The idea that anyone can predict the outcomes of technology is also

something I cannot accept. Einstein was appalled when he realised the
power of the atomic bomb. Did Stephenson really stop to consider the
consequences of his winning the Rainhill trials? Unlikely, and even
had he done so he was in no position to make a judgement. Look at the
number of inventions that folk have dismissed only to find somebody
else exploiting them.

>
> Getting back to CLD, the idea that CLD had insight into lots of

things is not borne out by the evidence. He was not a socialist even
in the Maurice mould never mind in the Morris model! CLD was,
despite his poverty stricken first eleven years, a Conservative and
was very sycophantic to the ruling classes. Look at his debacle with
Rosebery who was, by anyone's book a twit, that was only softened
because Rosebery had two daughters and was wise enough to accept to
accept a gift of 'Alice' knowing full well that CLD was famous by
then.

> most accomplished biographers around. But, Keith, isn't this
> preciely because she takes exactly the type of rigorous,
> historiographical approach that you go to such pains to

disparage. I

> haven't read the Emily Tennyson biography - but have read other

of

> her biographies (he biography of Gosse is remarkable) - but both

Dr

> Thwaite and her husband build there biographical writings on the
> basis of a highly methodological approach to biography which is
> precisely what I am arguing for in the case of Carroll (This is
> almost certainly why, on top of her 'earned' doctorate, she was
> awarded an honorary D.Litt. by everyone's favourite social

sciences

> university, the University of East Anglia. I suppose if Anne

Thwaite

> was german, she swould these days be addressed as Dr, Dr Thwaite!
>
> Now, regarding the rest of your mail. I can't really respond

unless

> you explain what you mean by 'our sense' of the term socialist.

If

> you mean the word as it is used politically in the UK in

contemporary

> terms then I cannot accept that statement. Morris's socialism was
> based on tweo ideas (both of which FD Maurice approved of - and

both

> of which Carroll approved of. First was the danger of the de-
> skilling of the workforce by the adoption of economies of scale

and

> division of labour. Second was the primacy of the social over the
> individual - the idea of community and the social and economic

group

> in which no simgle person can take 'ownership' of production.

Both,

> of course, were early exponents of the idea that technical and
> scientific innovations require balancing by an understanding of

the

> consequences of such developments and ensuring that major

innovations

> are only introduced after careful considerations of the social
> consequences. Sylvie and Bruno was, in part, a satire of this

idea

> of the consequences of deifying 'knowledge' without

understanding.

> Similarly, when you read Carroll's anti-vivisection qwritings, he

is

> equally critical of those whose aim is merely the production of
> scientific ideas as a commercial process. Of course the main-

stream

> of British socialism since the 1920s actually extolls the
> materialising of scientific progress - so no, keith, i cannot

> do
> > a professional and objective job but was sabotaged, apparently,
> by
> > his editor who insisted on wholseale changes and deletions on
> purely
> > commercial ground (i.e., 'get rid of all tyhis boring religious
> > rubbish and put in more juicy sex and scandal'.
> >
> > Other biographers were just not trained historians and appear

to

> have
> > no undestanding of the religious, political and social
> environment in
> > which Carroll lived.
> >
> > I have to say that many of the things that you have pointed out
> of
> > contradictory about Carroll are in fact not, when seen in a

19th

> > century context. For example you describe Carroll as ultra
> > conservative and cite his support (or relationship with)

Maurice

> as
> > contradictory. However don't forget that politically and in

terms

> of
> > maintaining the social and cultural mores of their time people
> like
> > Maurice, ludlow, Kinglsey and others associated with the
> Christian
> > Socialist and Broad Church movement were in fact Conservative
> > politically and very conservative socially. The Christian
> Socialist
> > movement arose from a spiritual and political reaction to
> Liberalism
> > and emerged wholly from the Conservative tradition. You can see
> its
> > parallel in the New England movement - a fundamental rejection

> > clear similarities in the world views of all these people -
> beginning
> > with an complete rejecvtion of Liberal values.
> >
> > I agree that his associations with women do appear to raise
> certain
> > issues. However (and again) this was not quite as unusual as
> would
> > appear from a 21st century perspective. This was ther beginning
> of
> > the period leading towards female emancipation and it has been
> > strongly argued by historians such as Christopher Hill and Eric
> > Hobsbaum that class distictions between women and men (I'm
> talking
> > here about the lower middle class to minor aristocracy

spectrum)

> were
> > far looser than between men and men. There was a certain cache
> > involved in mentoring bright young women from comparatively

lowly

> or
> > less advantaged backgrounds - so long as in other respects they
> were
> > respectable. Don't forget that many of the women who attended

the

> > early women colleges were patronised by 'forward thinking men'

of

> the
> > higher classes.
> >
> > I have always felt that no competent biography of Carroll is
> possible
> > unless carried out by somebody who is first and foremost a
> > historian. Even AE Wilson would be preferable to somebody

working

> > from a purely literary background.
> >
> > Not that Carroll is alone in this, I have seen similar
> difficulties
> > with biographies of people such as Coleridge and Defoe - both
> writers
> > whose contributions go beyond the astrictly literary.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > JT
> >
> > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith" <keith@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jenny,
> > >
> > > with Lewis Carroll he has not been served well by his
> biographers.
> > Collingwood did his best under the circumstances of having six

of

> > CLD's sisters giving him 'advice' but in the end he did a
> whitewash
> > job, but one which is the obligatory starting point for all the
> > biographers who followed.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately we have never had one of the professional
> biographers
> > do a job on CLD so it's been left to the amateurs who quite
> frankly
> > have muffed it. Whether Margaret Lane or Ann Thwaite would have
> > succeeded is of course debatable and perhaps they had enough
> sense to
> > steer clear of someone who has more contradictions than one

would

> > expect.
> > >
> > > I think he was deliberately contradictory but if he was he

put

> a
> > lot of effort into it. He was a snob who spent several days
> caring
> > for a college scout. He was an ultra conservative who attended
> > services in a church run by F.D. Maurice, a man with socialist
> > leanings. He doled out his money in purses so that he never had
> to
> > over-tip or under-tip and kept accounts of his holiday spending
> then
> > gave away most of his money away to his family and friends. He
> > professed an interest in history and then lived next door to a
> > medieval castle, one which he took close to 30 years to visit.

> > > enigmatic one-off, and in a way it's hard to add to that.
> > However, I
> > > always feel I learn a lot from one-offs and I have certainly
> > found it
> > > most interesting to consider how Carroll's mind worked.
> > >
> > > I'd just add that it seems very hard even to see one's

Also just to be contradictory he refused in June 1894 to go to breakfast with him when invited to do so on the grounds that if he accepted one invitation he d

Message 6 of 13
, Nov 19, 2007

Also just to be contradictory he refused in June 1894 to go to
breakfast with him when invited to do so on the grounds that if he
accepted one invitation he'd have to accept others!

>

Actually, I think this suggests that he was not particularly
intimidated or impressed by Rosebery's rank, and stuck to his own
views - not just about whether Rosebery was wrong in not acknowledging
him, to not allowing himself to be taken for granted when it came to
invitations. I don't actually see how it shows he was a sycophant.
Jenny

Keith

Jenny, exactly! The incident in the quad shows he was sycophantic, as does the other things, the book, chasing Rosebery s daughters, then completely

Message 7 of 13
, Nov 19, 2007

Jenny,

exactly! The incident in the quad shows he was
sycophantic, as does the other things, the book, chasing Rosebery's daughters,
then completely contradictory he refuses an invitation to meet the man solely on
the grounds of refusing all such invitations.

That's why it is so difficult for anyone to say CLD
was this or that because he was both often at the same time! A biographer's
nightmare.

Also just to be contradictory he refused in June 1894 to go to
breakfast with him when invited to do so on the grounds that if he
accepted one invitation he'd have to accept others!>

Actually, I think this suggests that he was not particularly
intimidated or impressed by Rosebery's rank, and stuck to his own
views - not just about whether Rosebery was wrong in not acknowledging
him, to not allowing himself to be taken for granted when it came to
invitations. I don't actually see how it shows he was a sycophant.
Jenny